UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7982

JEROME MCFADDEN,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

S.B. LEWIS, Associate Warden; FRANK MURSIER, Major McCI; L. 

CARTELEDGE, Warden at McCI McCormick Correctional 

Institution,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Mary Geiger Lewis, District 

Judge. (0:12-cv-01627-MGL)

Submitted: March 20, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome McFadden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerome McFadden appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint as frivolous 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). McFadden’s complaint 

alleged that prison officials had retaliated against him for his 

filing of a prior § 1983 action by transferring him to a 

facility at which he feared for his safety, terminating him from 

his prison job, placing him in administrative segregation, 

verbally and sexually harassing him, and filing false 

disciplinary charges against him. Although the district court 

assessed each individual action of which McFadden complained, it 

did not evaluate his assertion that the individual acts were 

motivated by an intent to retaliate against him because he had 

filed a previous lawsuit. 

Retaliation against an inmate for the exercise of his 

right to access the courts states a cognizable claim. 

Hudspeth v. Figgins, 584 F.2d 1345, 1347-48 (4th Cir. 1978). 

Such retaliation by an official is actionable even if the act 

would have been proper if taken for different reasons. American 

Civ. Liberties Union v. Wicomico Cnty., 999 F.2d 780, 785 (4th 

Cir. 1993). In order to state a retaliation claim, the 

“plaintiff must allege either that the retaliatory act was taken 

in response to the exercise of a constitutionally protected 

right or that the act itself violated such a right.” Adams v. 
3

Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994). The plaintiff must allege 

sufficient facts to warrant concern that the alleged retaliation 

might have a chilling effect on the exercise of the right to 

access the courts and show that he suffered more than de minimis 

inconvenience. Wicomico, 999 F.2d at 785-86 & n.6. The 

prisoner need not succumb entirely or even partially to the 

threat; it is sufficient that the retaliation was intended to 

limit the prisoner’s right of access to the court “and was 

reasonably calculated to have that effect.” Hudspeth, 584 F.2d 

at 1348. However, the plaintiff must allege specific facts 

supporting his claim of retaliation; bare assertions of 

retaliation do not establish a claim of constitutional 

dimension. Adams, 40 F.3d at 74-75.

Here, because the district court failed to consider 

McFadden’s claim that each of the specific actions he complained 

of were taken in retaliation for his filing of a previous § 1983 

complaint, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for 

consideration of this claim in the first instance. See Adams, 

40 F.3d at 75. In so doing, we express no opinion as to the 

merits of McFadden’s claims. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

VACATED AND REMANDED